Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Possible solution for saving Hubble
E.T
Quote-o-matic
in Zocalo v2.0
This sounds rational.
This kind of aproach could be even used to rise Hubble back to higher orbit after repairs.
It would be also good to have more experience from this kind of operations because ship for Mars flight would be assembled in orbit from smaller modules... even with Saturn V sized rocket it would take at least four launches to get all parts to "assembly orbit".
[quote]Before the recent selection of a company to research the robotic repair system, Skycorp, a satellite company, had offered to create a solar-electric space tug, an ion-rocket powered stage that, when launched to rendezvous with Hubble, dock with the spacecraft and gradually move it into the ISS’s orbit, a major orbital plane change of about 30 degrees. (This could not be accomplished using a chemical stage.) As noted by Dennis Wingo, author and founder of Skycorp, about a year ago, a similar system is being developed by industry to rescue and extend the lifetime of expensive Comsats.[/quote][url]http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_hubble_050128.html[/url]
This kind of aproach could be even used to rise Hubble back to higher orbit after repairs.
It would be also good to have more experience from this kind of operations because ship for Mars flight would be assembled in orbit from smaller modules... even with Saturn V sized rocket it would take at least four launches to get all parts to "assembly orbit".
[quote]Before the recent selection of a company to research the robotic repair system, Skycorp, a satellite company, had offered to create a solar-electric space tug, an ion-rocket powered stage that, when launched to rendezvous with Hubble, dock with the spacecraft and gradually move it into the ISS’s orbit, a major orbital plane change of about 30 degrees. (This could not be accomplished using a chemical stage.) As noted by Dennis Wingo, author and founder of Skycorp, about a year ago, a similar system is being developed by industry to rescue and extend the lifetime of expensive Comsats.[/quote][url]http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_hubble_050128.html[/url]
Comments
[Edit]Skynet, nevermind.
The Hubble may be 15 years old, but the telescope component is still in prime condition and it still has very advanced, very [i]recent[/i] cameras on it. Oh, and there's the fact that astronauts are willing to risk their lives to go fix it, and have said as much.
Repeat after me: desktop computers and space systems are not directly comparable.
E.T, feel free to correct any mistakes in my post. :)
desktop computers and space systems are not directly comparable.
desktop computers and space systems are not directly comparable.
I still feel that we should let it fall into the atmosphere. Your like one of people that refuses to stop driving the 79 Pinto!!! The original designs didn't call for a 30 or 40 year life span! did they? 15-20 it was. With that method we would still have Skylab and Mir in orbit with the lights flickering, bad smokey smells and horrable food.
Don't forget they even blew up B5 because it outlived its usefulness , not becasue it didn't work anymore!
As for my car driving habits, I would never drive something that old unless it was in very good condition and the engine had been replaced with something modern. But, once again... repeat after me: cars and space systems are not directly comparable. :)
cars and space systems are not directly comparable
cars and space systems are not directly comparable
NASAs desicion is final. You never answered the skylab and mir comparision. If the EU wishes they should be able to service it and pay for it for the next decade with their Euros absolutly.
[B]E.T, feel free to correct any mistakes in my post. :) [/B][/QUOTE]For start Hubble and Webb aren't really comparable, Hubble is IR/visible/UV telescope while Webb will be IR telescope.
Optics doesn't have "best before" date, it's cameras and instruments which get old and they were designed to be replaceable with newer and better ones.
exile, it was Cyberdyne, Skynet was that computer/AI.
[B]NASAs desicion is final. You never answered the skylab and mir comparision. If the EU wishes they should be able to service it and pay for it for the next decade with their Euros absolutly. [/B][/QUOTE]
Skylab and Mir are valid comparisons because they outlived their usefulness and design life, neither of which the Hubble has yet to come close to doing. As E.T mentioned in his post just above, the Hubble's systems which need to be upgradable are upgradable, and have been upgraded more than once.
You seem to imply that NASA should be doing something else with its money other than scientific work. I assume you mean that whole Mars mission thing?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]For start Hubble and Webb aren't really comparable, Hubble is IR/visible/UV telescope while Webb will be IR telescope.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think I mentioned that. Sort of.
[B]You seem to imply that NASA should be doing something else with its money other than scientific work. I assume you mean that whole Mars mission thing?[/B][/QUOTE]My guess is that he wants that money to be donated to poor hands of military industrial complex...
But I'm sure Dubya would have also lot of other buddies willing to receiving those donations.
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2005/sum/fy05budget1.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/budget/fy2005/index.html[/url]
[url]http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Evasion.asp[/url]
[img]http://www.corpwatch.org/img/original/risingboats.jpg[/img]
They could save *notable* quantities of expensive fuel -- which currently has to be lifted from Earth.
I would appear quite practical to use one for bringing Hubble into repairable position (ISS), repair it there, and take it back to working position.
Later on, the same tug could start manouvering cheaply launched satellites from low "temporary orbit" to high working orbits. It would be a remarkably economical tool.
I am not anti telescope, just wanting upgrades for scientific research. The mirrior in hubble is always the same regardless of how many upgrades is done on the chassis.
[B]The mirrior in hubble is always the same regardless of how many upgrades is done on the chassis. [/B][/QUOTE]So are mirrors and lenses in ground based telescopes... and some of those are 50, even nearly 100 years old!
So maybe all those should be scrapped to save money for [url=http://www.eso.org/projects/owl/]OWL[/url].
[img]http://www.corpwatch.org/img/original/Halli-Baba.jpg[/img]
-- Trafe deficit is unfortunate (but who cares, deficits can be sustained for a while).
-- Supposed "fiscal conservatism" has produced a quite bloated budget, yet failed to create more public services. If efficiency has not decreased... where exactly has the money gone?
-- Stretching the budget has not been compensated by increased taxes, but borrowing. (But who cares, it's not my business.)
-- US currency value has become poorly predictable, which may bring about a painful restructuring both to American, Asian and European economies. If everyone has shit up to nose, a big country making waves *can* result in a shitstorm.
-- Discriminatory ventures are being supported by the president (like denying gay people right to marry). But who cares, it's internal affairs. They can emigrate into a more reasonable country like Canada.
-- Due to a foolish president recklessly invading Iraq before Afghanistan was stabilized (and due to demanding blank cheques of trust, failing to build a proper alliance), US military resources are overstretched (and Europe cannot upsize its long-reach capabilities fast enough to prevent a distressing vacuum).
-- Afghanistan has become a first-class poppy economy, its government has very limited reach. Meanwhile Iraq is experiencing a shortage of troops (who are mostly doing damage control, because there wasn't sufficiently many to begin with). Iraq got multiple times less peacekeepers per inhabitant than Kosovo.
-- Saddam is deposed, but could have been deposed later from a better position. Fellows like Kim Jong "ill" know that nothing threatens them anytime soon. Sure, scraps exist which can still be withdrawn from peaceful locations, but the bottom is showing. Whatever happened to the wisdom of keeping reserves.
-- Perhaps worst of all, US government has lost ability to criticize Iran, Burma, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. because it adopted their practises of arbitrary detention, torture and denial of due process. It has shown willingness to create lawless zones, remove a person's rights beyond ability to protest their removal. It likewise cannot criticize Russia for failure to prevent wanton crimes in Chechnia. It keeps undermining the ICC, despite receiving every guarantee that it can investigate its own people.
Despite talk of freedom and justice, the Bush government is justifying unacceptable means with unattainable ends, undermining human and civil rights, offering stupid example to authoritarian regimes, and generally wasting long-accumulated trust and credibility. It is wasting freedom equally much as building it.
Luckily the US is just one country. While Bush could have picked a better time to rock the boat... the world at large *may* have enough ballast to weather this. But such choices incur inevitable costs -- which future generations will be bitter to pay.
Apologies for political distraction. Rant over.
[B]I am not anti telescope, just wanting upgrades for scientific research. The mirrior in hubble is always the same regardless of how many upgrades is done on the chassis. [/B][/QUOTE]
As E.T said, the mirror doesn't need to be upgraded. It's the instruments that do, and they have been.
As for the telescope, lets hope SOMEONE does something.
Eventually, all of this could have somehow been compensated for... but Mir lacked expansion opportunities for swapping parts or becoming something bigger.
It was not designed to grow.
(thats one word I have NEVER been able to spell, even on a good day. 125 min commute to campus was not fun today....)
On this web site it confirms it was sent on a 15 year mission.
[url]http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/hst/about/history.html[/url]
I dont know if you guys ever heard of "Designed Obsolesces" but there is a reason they are sending it into the sea. Also since you brought up where should the funds go then, well how about a new Telescope with a mirror that was never defective!!?? Why does Earth have to settle for 15 year old junk? When for the cause of science to build someting better, faster, and stronger????
Plus!!!
If you look at these pics
[url]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7384[/url]
You can see the Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts all over the place. Should an astronaut waste time with spik and spackle fixing this hunk of junk? All you need is one these to shatter your mirror of eternity!!!
And as ET said 100 year old ground based telescopes..groovy but there are no intergrated circuits or transistors or capacitors to worry about. I am sure they will work for anouther 1000 years.
I deal with cheap engineers like you all the time, obsolete relays or semi's ,, hey guys time for a new design instead of looking for parts that went into lifetime buy 10 years ago!!! Getting junk to fix junk from some dark pier in the bay.
Do you guys have a Hubble Shrine in your rooms, do you worship it or something why such a love affair for Hubble Rubble?
And if we wanna talk Soros and what an idiot/genius he is lets start a new thread!!!
[B]BIGGLES, ET
On this web site it confirms it was sent on a 15 year mission.[/quote]
The mars twins were sent on a 90 day mission. And what about galleleo? Intesions does not mean it has to be
[quote]I dont know if you guys ever heard of "Designed Obsolesces" but there is a reason they are sending it into the sea. [/quote]
To prevent damage to property and human life.
[quote] Also since you brought up where should the funds go then, well how about a new Telescope with a mirror that was never defective!!??[/quote]
I don't think you have been reading the posts because THERE ALREADY WILL BE! It already has the funds. It just wont see in the visible spectrum but a few ground based telescopes are now at the same resolution as hubble.
[quote[Why does Earth have to settle for 15 year old junk? When for the cause of science to build someting better, faster, and stronger????[/quote]
Stop being conoperian (sp). Bigger, faster, Stronger != Better. Its a matter of utility. Hubble is fixed (the mirror is for all intents and purposes no longer defective.) Also many of the instruments, as Biggles has said, are new and modern, not 15 years old. Its like my computer. Everything inside has been replaced, but the case has been the same because it still functions.
[quote]
You can see the Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts all over the place. Should an astronaut waste time with spik and spackle fixing this hunk of junk? All you need is one these to shatter your mirror of eternity!!!
[/quote]
If you knew as much as you think you do you would know that the hubble has a lid that covers the mirror. My TI-89 has more scratches and abrasions than, I dunno, but it still FUNCTIONS FINE. It doesn't matter how a device looks as long as it doesn't interfere with the utility.
[quote]And as ET said 100 year old ground based telescopes..groovy but there are no intergrated circuits or transistors or capacitors to worry about. I am sure they will work for anouther 1000 years.[/quote]
So the hubble circuits can last only 30 years instead of 100. That is the cheep stuff.
[quote]I deal with cheap engineers like you all the time, obsolete relays or semi's ,, hey guys time for a new design instead of looking for parts that went into lifetime buy 10 years ago!!! Getting junk to fix junk from some dark pier in the bay.[/quote]
The hubble is a custom units with custom parts made for specific purposes, unlike the space shuttle which you can build with parts from radio shack. Honestly I don't think you really know what you are talking about.
[quote]Do you guys have a Hubble Shrine in your rooms, do you worship it or something why such a love affair for Hubble Rubble?[/quote]
Negative reactions and insults like yours is a sign you are unable to find counter arguments. Instead of being able to accept the possibility that you might be wrong you insult others and try and decredit them.
[B]BIGGLES, ET
On this web site it confirms it was sent on a 15 year mission.
[url]http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/hst/about/history.html[/url]
I dont know if you guys ever heard of "Designed Obsolesces" but there is a reason they are sending it into the sea. Also since you brought up where should the funds go then, well how about a new Telescope with a mirror that was never defective!!?? Why does Earth have to settle for 15 year old junk? When for the cause of science to build someting better, faster, and stronger????
Plus!!!
If you look at these pics
[url]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7384[/url]
You can see the Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts all over the place. Should an astronaut waste time with spik and spackle fixing this hunk of junk? All you need is one these to shatter your mirror of eternity!!!
And as ET said 100 year old ground based telescopes..groovy but there are no intergrated circuits or transistors or capacitors to worry about. I am sure they will work for anouther 1000 years.
I deal with cheap engineers like you all the time, obsolete relays or semi's ,, hey guys time for a new design instead of looking for parts that went into lifetime buy 10 years ago!!! Getting junk to fix junk from some dark pier in the bay.
Do you guys have a Hubble Shrine in your rooms, do you worship it or something why such a love affair for Hubble Rubble?
And if we wanna talk Soros and what an idiot/genius he is lets start a new thread!!! [/B][/QUOTE]
Um.
1. Hubble is not obsolete. It is still the best telescope in the world with extremely high demand for its use. There are no plans to replace it if it is decomissioned.
2. 15 year old junk? Uh, you realize that earthbound telescopes have a life expectancy of many, many times that (with only minor equipment upgrades and repairs).
3. "Designed Obsolesces" is a corporate slogan designed to make their customers wish to replace things that should not need replacing (but do becuase of poor quality). NASA does not settle for such poor quality, though occasionally things slip through. When they do NASA repairs it. A multi-billion dollar satellite that is not something that you just say "Oh, it is broke. Time to toss it in the trash and buy a new one that will be broke in another couple of years."
Firstly, the funds [i]could[/i] go to a direct replacement for the Hubble (ie one that sees the same spectrum) but they [i]won't[/i]. That is a big part of the problem. If they had said "OK, we're going to cut Hubble short but we'll get a direct replacement up there as soon as possible," I'd be a lot happier.
Secondly, it may be covered with impact marks on the outside, but the inside is perfectly fine. No doubt the ISS has more than a few impact marks on it as well, should we immediatly abandon that too, as you seem to suggest is the correct course of action? When they go up there to do a service on the Hubble, they don't polish the case. They replace the guts. Yes, it's possible that a meteor could take out the mirror, but as mentioned by croxis there is a cover to protect it during known dust patches and the rest of the time... well space is rather vast. It has the same chances as any replacement they'd put up. Hardly a valid reason to dump it and put up an entirely new one. Your contradicting yourself here.
Finally, flaming me or my engineering ability is not a good debating technique.
[B]
Secondly, it may be covered with impact marks on the outside, but the inside is perfectly fine. No doubt the ISS has more than a few impact marks on it as well, should we immediatly abandon that too, as you seem to suggest is the correct course of action? [/B][/QUOTE]
Speaking of which, the Earth itself is covered by numerous impact marks. Should we abandon the planet?
Psi Killer, your argument has serious flaws.
[B]Speaking of which, the Earth itself is covered by numerous impact marks. Should we abandon the planet? [/B][/QUOTE]
Sometime I think some of us should
[B]Secondly, it may be covered with impact marks on the outside, but the inside is perfectly fine.[/B][/QUOTE]I've seen ~2x4 m piece of Hubble's solar panel which had been out there for five years.
There was only couple few millimeter sized holes in it, rest were just surface scratches and solar panels are definitely much more fragile than hulls of satellites.
And neither did surface of it look "sand blasted" or anything like that.
[url]http://koti.mbnet.fi/~tuunaes/Images/Hubble+panel.jpg[/url]
And talking about Hubble's "successor", it will be much more prone to damage!
[url=http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/][img]http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/SiteGraphics/JWST_still_NGST.jpg[/img][/url]
Designed Obsolesces is just a fact of life. You can say it may not need replacing but you will have to eventually and it can sometimes be more coslty if put off to a later date. With out replacing or buying new materials you will have high unemployment rates, stagnation in products.
I was actually shocked too see on space.com 2 articles directly related too this conversation/argument discussion. 2013 proposed currently for deorbit which puts it way above 15 year life span. I don't honestly know how you could get more life out of Hubble. With the dents and scratches as a sign eventually you will have a crtical hit I don't see any way around it. The ISS is only 5 years old. You can't compair Hubble and ISS apples and oranges.
[url]http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/orbital_debris_050202.html[/url]
[url]http://www.space.com/news/congress_hubble_050202.html[/url]
This is stupid. It has not failed nor does it show any sign of failing. Hubble was designed in such a way that it was upgradable. The only thing that Hubble needs occasionally is a repair of a faulty circut or an orbital boost to keep it from falling. And sometimes the upgrade of some component to allow for more types of observation. Nothing else should be needed.
Let me ask you: When your computer mouse fails, do you buy a whole new computer or just replace the mouse?
We showed when we repaired the mirror on Hubble that it can be reached. The mear fact we are supposedly going to go up to hubble to add boosters to send it into the ocean is reaching it. If we fix the couple things that are acting up on it then we would have another 5+ years before it would need any more attention.
Hubble isn't a peice of space junk. It is still the most powerful optical telescope in existance. It still has incredible demand for its services. And it still functions very reliably.
As ET said, there is nothing wrong with it from microimpacts. Well, let me add to that: If you think that becuase it was built over a decade ago that that makes it "outdated" and "in need of replacement" let me clue you in on something. While technology of computers has changed a lot, the only real thing that has changed is miniturization. In a space environment you probably don't want that. When you make something smaller it is more prone to error. When you make transisters smaller you reduce the current so you don't have quantum tunneling - but the telescope is exposed to solar radiation - that means that you would get jumps across transistors from the energy boost from the radiation, the same way photocells work. You don't want miniturization. Besides, the circuts on Hubble are minimal in terms of computation. It causes it to track to a location, take a picture, send it to earth. There is no other type of processing going on there. You could build that type of circuit out of a basic stamp (if it would stand up to the environment which it won't).
What else is has changed in the past 10-20 years? Uh, well, amirror is still a mirror. The optical camera technology has been improved, but that is easy to change without spending billions on a new telescope. The spectrometer was added when they repaired the mirror, so thats a lot more recent - and that technology hasn't changed either. The communications methodology has changed, but we don't need to worry about that. AM and FM radio stations don't need digital transmitters! Why should Hubble! Solar panels are still solar panels...they have photocells, thats not new. We can make them more efficently now, but so what? It already has them. So whats left? NOTHING.
There is NOTHING on Hubble that is outdated that has any reason to be replaced. So why is it obsolete?
A "mission lifetime" is not the same thing as "obsolete" - it is how long NASA expected to maintain the mission. If you are talking about it as "obsolete" then you must be refering to the people on the ground team that NASA doesn't want to pay anymore.
--RC
The tax payers of the US payed for it. We shared all the knowldge for free. Yet when it comes to servicing it or maintaning it will only be a US or Russian spaceship that can do it. I suggest that if other nations want it , let them propose to the US Congress(who spends the money anyway for everything) to propose that they will take some of the burden to keep it. From all these post it is "We want it and YOU will have to pay for it." The EU must have some spacecraft that can service it and should take it off the drawing board and make it real.